Barriers and Facilitators to Knowledge Management in University Research Centers: An Exploratory Study

An Exploratory Study on Knowledge Management Process Barriers in the Oil Industry

This paper identify and discuss barriers affecting knowledge management (KM) processes in the oil industry. Based on reviewing the literature on this topic, we used a conceptual model comprising the most important barriers, grouped in three categories–organizational, knowledge and people related–influencing four critical KM processes–creation, storage, share and application. Using factor analysis, we identified which barriers influence the most each of the KM process and what are the practical implications for companies operating in the oil industry. This study provides useful insights regarding knowledge processes barriers, enabling top executives to better cope with factors hindering successful implementation of KM initiatives.

A collaborative system to improve knowledge sharing in scientific research projects

As knowledge sharing is important for every sector, it should be encouraged among team members. Particularly, scientific research projects usually involve knowledge-intensive teams that require members to share various knowledge forms while working together. Although several collaborative systems exist on different platforms, the system features required to improve knowledge sharing between researchers are insufficient. A collaborative system, the Research Collaboration System, designed and developed based on identified collaborative activities and the SECI model, is evaluated by two scientific research projects. Preliminary results show that this system could serve all major research activities of scientific research projects and enhance knowledge sharing.

Knowledge sharing in knowledge-intensive manufacturing firms. An empirical study of its enablers

Purpose

– This paper aims to investigate, following previous studies on knowledge-sharing (KS) processes that consist of knowledge donating (KD) and knowledge collecting (KC), the relationship between KS processes and KS enablers to understand the effect of organizational, individual and technological factors.

Design/methodology/approach

– The study is based on a Web survey. Data were collected from a sample of 759 knowledge workers selected from 23 knowledge-intensive manufacturing companies exposed to international markets and located in Tuscany (Italy). The analysis is based on multivariate regression models considering KD and KC as dependent variables.

Findings

– The results show that individual, organizational and technological factors matter to KS. Specifically, the paper reports that individual-level enablers and supportive leadership have a positive effect on both sub-processes of knowledge sharing. Further, the organic management system has a strong and positive impact on KD, while the efficacy of information and communication technology solutions is positively related to KC.

Research limitations/implications

– Although based on a geographically bounded perimeter, the analysis allows some generalizations. In fact, the paper proposes a set of enablers that empirically link micro- and macro-organizational mechanisms to KS.

Practical implications

– The evidence described can help improve the organizational management of KS and, consequently, support managers dealing with organizational design aimed at successful KS.

Originality/value

– The paper presents original results by combining individual, organizational and technological variables in the explanation of KS. It could be a basis for further studies.

Knowledge-centered culture and knowledge sharing: the moderator role of trust propensity

Purpose

– This research aims to evaluate if knowledge-centered culture (KCC) fosters knowledge sharing equally across employees with different levels of trust propensity, an enduring individual characteristic.

Design/methodology/approach

– A cross-sectional questionnaire study was conducted with 128 US-based employees.

Findings

– The authors found that KCC only promoted knowledge sharing in individuals with high levels of trust propensity. For individuals with low levels of trust propensity, KCC had no effect on knowledge sharing.

Research limitations/implications

– The authors focused exclusively on trust propensity as a moderator. Future research could analyze the role of other enduring individual differences in the relationship between KCC and knowledge sharing.

Practical implications

– A KCC may be inefficient in promoting knowledge sharing in employees with low propensity to trust. Recruitment and selection of individuals with a high propensity to trust is a possible solution to enhance the association between KCC and knowledge sharing in organizations.

Originality/value

– By identifying an enduring individual characteristic that shapes the relationship between KCC and knowledge sharing, the authors move toward the development of a contingent view of KCC and show that KCC fosters knowledge sharing differently across employees.

The barriers of knowledge generation, storage, distribution and application that impede learning in gas and petroleum companies

Purpose

– This paper aims to find and rank the barriers of the four knowledge management (KM) processes including generation, storage, distribution and application in the gas and petroleum sector.

Design/methodology/approach

– Reviewing the literature of KM and organizational learning, this paper extracted all of the barriers which impede KM processes. Then it designed a questionnaire for validating, ranking and categorizing barriers. Totally, 190 completed questionnaires were gathered from 26 gas and petroleum companies in Iran. Some statistical tests such as T, Friedman, Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney were used for analyzing data.

Findings

– Findings reviewed the current literature of KM barriers, validated and ranked the barriers of knowledge generation, storage, distribution and application separately. The importance of knowledge generation and knowledge application barriers were significantly different between gas and petroleum companies. Hence they were disjointedly ranked for gas and petroleum. Finally, KM barriers were ranked according to their contribution to KM processes and the average mean of their importance in KM processes.

Practical implications

– From the practical point of view, this paper suggests managers of gas and petroleum companies to emphasize solving high-priority barriers according to the KM process which they are focused on. Furthermore, the study provides a checklist that can be used as an assessment tool for evaluating KM processes considering barriers.

Originality/value

– This paper finds the importance of each barrier for each of the four KM processes and ranks the “critical barriers” according to their contribution to four KM processes in the gas and petroleum sector.